This is
an appeal from a take-nothing judgment rendered in a
products-liability jury trial. Appellant Richard Fisher
challenges the take-nothing judgment rendered in favor of
appellees Kawasaki Heavy Industries, Ltd., Kawasaki Motors
Corporation, U.S.A., and Kawasaki Motors Manufacturing
Corporation, U.S.A. (collectively Kawasaki unless otherwise
noted). By five issues, which we construe as four, Fisher
asserts that the trial court committed harmful error on four
specific evidentiary rulings, or in the alternative and
collectively, under the doctrine of cumulative error. We
affirm.

I.Background

On the
afternoon of November 18, 2010, then fifty-seven-year-old
Richard Fisher visited his ranch in Refugio with the
intention to go deer hunting. Prior to the hunt, Fisher
purchased two 250-pound tubs of molasses that he aimed to use
to distract his cattle and horses while he hunted in his deer
blind. Fisher transported the tubs in the bed of his pickup
from the store where he purchased them to his ranch. Upon
arriving at the ranch, Fisher sought to transfer the tubs
from the bed of his pickup to the cargo bed of his 2006-model
Kawasaki Mule 610 4x4 side-by-side utility vehicle (the
Mule).[1] The Mule's cargo bed had a dump
feature that was secured by a manual over center latch
located on the passenger's side, under the Mule's
bench seat. Fisher had used the Mule in the past to transport
miscellaneous items on his ranch.

In
preparing the transfer of the tubs from his pickup to the
Mule, Fisher parked the Mule and his pickup "stern to
stern" with "both tailgates down." The record
shows that the height difference between the pickup tailgate
and the Mule tailgate was five inches. Fisher, who (Image
Omitted) weighed "around 220 [pounds]" at the time,
then entered the cargo bed of the Mule and progressed to the
back of the Mule, when the Mule's cargo bed "flipped
up" and threw Fisher to the ground. As a result of the
fall, which Fisher described as "violent, " Fisher
sustained a tibial plateau fracture and lateral meniscus tear
on the anterior horn of his right knee. While on the ground,
he first called his wife Lucia for help. Fisher told jurors
that he did not call 9-1-1 because he did not have his
mailbox up and was worried that emergency workers would not
be able to find his ranch.

After
speaking to his wife, Fisher then called his neighbor Ronald
Lucich Sr. asking for help. Lucich Sr. testified that Fisher
told him that the cargo bed of the Mule flipped because he
did not latch it. Lucich Sr., who was at work at the time,
then called his son Ronald Lucich Jr. to check on Fisher.
Lucich Jr., who was age fifteen at the time of trial,
testified that his father called him as he left school that
afternoon and told him to check on Fisher at Fisher's
ranch. Upon arriving at Fisher's ranch, Lucich Jr.
observed the Mule and Fisher's pickup backed up to each
other, Fisher leaning up against the Mule, and a tub of
molasses on the ground. Lucich Jr. then told jurors that
Fisher told him "I forgot to latch the goddang
thing." Fisher denied making this statement to Lucich
Jr. and told jurors that he "had no idea [the cargo bed]
was unlatched" and had no reason to believe it was
unlatched because he rarely used the Mule. Lucich Jr. stayed
with Fisher until Lucia arrived to transport Fisher to
Doctors Regional Hospital.

At the
time of his injury, Fisher was employed as a licensed harbor
pilot at the Port of Houston earning an annual salary of
slightly more than $500, 000. In order to obtain a
pilot's license such as Fisher's, pilots must undergo
a United States Coast Guard-mandated physical exam due to the
physical demands of the job such as climbing rope ladders and
boarding ships as large as "super tankers." Fisher
testified that because of his injuries, however, he failed
his 2011 annual physical and had his pilot's license
revoked.

Fisher
subsequently sued Kawasaki for damages resulting from his
injuries. In his petition, he alleged claims of strict
products liability, negligence, and violations of the Texas
Deceptive Trade Practices Act.

At
trial, Fisher presented testimony from Andrew Gilberg, P.E.
who testified that the Mule's latching system was
defective. Gilberg testified that Kawasaki failed to perform
what engineers call a "failure mode effects
analysis" to assess the risk of the Mule's latching
system. Specifically, Gilberg stated that the Mule's
over-center latching system as designed did not notify the
user whether the latching system was engaged when the bench
seat was down. Gilberg testified that the majority of other
side-by-side utility vehicles on the market at the time
utilized a slam latch system similar to the latches found on
an automobile's hood or door. According to Gilberg, the
slam latch is a cost-effective design to alert the user if
the latch is not engaged. Gilberg showed jurors videotaped
testing he ran on a modified Mule containing a slam latch
system rather than the over-center latch found on the Mule at
issue. The modified Mule withstood various weight tests.

Fisher
played the video deposition of Kawasaki corporate
representative, Hideotoshi Kaku, who was also one of the
engineers in charge of designing the latch system in the
Mule. Kaku testified that all Kawasaki Mule models had the
same over-center latch system since 1988, and Kawasaki
possessed no information or reports of problems related to
this particular latch system to deem it unreliable. Kaku
further testified that Kawasaki did not view the slam latch
system as cost-prohibitive, but likewise did not believe that
such a system was necessary.

Fisher
also presented expert testimony from Robert Cunitz, Ph.D., a
psychologist who specializes in human factors. Dr. Cunitz
defined the study of "human factors" as taking
knowledge of human behavior and learning and how it interacts
with the "things of various sorts in the real world in
which we find" from something as simple as sitting in a
chair to how controls are set up in jet aircraft. Dr. Cunitz
evaluated the Mule and testified that the Mule "looks
stable" despite being unlatched, which violates consumer
expectations because "it doesn't work the way you
think it does." Dr. Cunitz told jurors that the best way
to design the Mule to warn users that the latch was
disengaged was to have the bed pop up. Dr. Cunitz opined that
as designed in this case, the Mule created a tipping hazard
because the latch was not obvious, it was painted black and
located in a dark area, and it was "not
conspicuous" for the user to view. Finally, Dr. Cunitz
testified that from a human factors perspective, he did not
believe that Fisher failed to use ordinary care in his
interaction with the Mule on November 18, 2010.

Next,
Fisher presented evidence from Andrew Hammond, who is an
expert in ship pilot licenses. According to Hammond, as a
result of the injuries that Fisher sustained in this case, he
would be unable to obtain the necessary credentials from the
United States Coast Guard to maintain his pilot's
license. Occupational expert William L. Quintanilla testified
that based on Fisher's past employment history, current
physical condition, and lack of a pilot's license, Fisher
is employable "in administrative sedentary jobs" in
the water transportation industry with annual wages ranging
from $47, 788 to $59, 840. Lastly, economist Thomas Mayor,
Ph.D. testified about Fisher's economic outlook as a
result of his injury, after reviewing Fisher's medical
and occupational history. Dr. Mayor testified that had Fisher
not been injured and maintained his harbor pilot position at
his last net annual salary of $564, 997, Fisher would have
earned $2, 504, 632 from the date of his injury until the
date of trial. Furthermore, Dr. Mayor opined that if Fisher
had retired at: (1) age 63, he would have lost future
earnings of $952, 323; (2) age 65, he would have lost future
earnings of $2, 075, 373; and (3) age 68, which is the
mandatory retirement age for pilots, he would have lost
future earnings of $3, 626, 009.

After
Fisher rested, Kawasaki presented testimony from two relevant
expert witnesses. The first was John D. Olivas, Ph.D, an
engineer and former NASA astronaut. Dr. Olivas testified that
he was familiar with failure mode effects analysis as
testified to by Gilberg, but did not believe that it was
necessary in this case because such an analysis was "not
applicable" for such a "small . . . single
component" such as a latch. Dr. Olivas opined that the
Mule's over-center latch "is visible to any
operator" and "[the] ability to access it and
manipulate it is easy." Dr. Olivas further testified
that in his opinion, there was no failure with the latch, and
it was designed to operate without having to raise the bench
seat of the Mule. Dr. Olivas offered an opinion that Fisher
was negligent in that he knew about the latch and how to use
it but failed to operate it prior to climbing into the cargo
bed.

Lastly,
engineer Kevin Breen testified on behalf of Kawasaki. Breen
testified that he was the former chair of the Society of
Automotive Engineers' Special Purpose Vehicle Committee,
which developed standards and technical provisions for
vehicles such as the Mule involved in this case. According to
Breen, "more than 66, 000" Mules had been sold in
the United States prior to 2006 and after searching records
maintained by Kawasaki as well as the Consumer Product Safety
Commission, he was unable to find any other record of
incidents or injuries such as Fisher's. Breen opined that
he did not believe that the design of the Mule's latching
system caused or contributed to Fisher's injury. Breen
testified that the latching mechanism is "a mechanism
that works, [and] . . . it still . . . works properly
today."

After
an eight-day trial, the jury returned a verdict finding
Kawasaki not liable for any design defects of the Mule or any
defects in the warnings or instructions on the Mule. In
accordance with the verdict, the trial court signed a
take-nothing judgment in Kawasaki's favor. Fisher filed a
motion for new trial and asserted that: (1) the trial court
committed error by admitting certain testimony from Breen;
(2) the trial court committed error by admitting evidence
regarding Fisher's net worth; (3) the trial court
committed error by admitting testimony from Olivas regarding
Fisher's negligence; and (4) the evidence was factually
insufficient to support the verdict. After holding a hearing,
the trial court denied Fisher's motion for new trial, and
this appeal followed.

II.Evidentiary Rulings

By his
first four issues, which we construe as three, Fisher asserts
that the trial court committed reversible error by ...

Our website includes the first part of the main text of the court's opinion.
To read the entire case, you must purchase the decision for download. With purchase,
you also receive any available docket numbers, case citations or footnotes, dissents
and concurrences that accompany the decision.
Docket numbers and/or citations allow you to research a case further or to use a case in a
legal proceeding. Footnotes (if any) include details of the court's decision. If the document contains a simple affirmation or denial without discussion,
there may not be additional text.

Buy This Entire Record For
$7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.